It was the Nazis who developed and defined the idea of a “blitzkrieg.”Â Pat Buchanan has apologized for the Nazis.Â Is he thus comparing the Israelis favorably to those whom he believed nobly defended their fatherland against the diabolical Churchill?

Well, in my view, Pat Buchanan’s just another loony figure comparing Israel to the Nazis, even if he’s not as adverse to the latter as most who make the comparison.

UPDATE to revise my explanation:Â Buchanan thinks the Nazis were justified in invading Poland with their “blitzkrieg.”Â That suggests he believes a blitzkrieg to be a good thing.Â Ergo, if he calls Israel’s operation a blitzkrieg, he thinks their operation is justified.

I guess that means he supports it.Â That doesn’t make him any less of a crackpot.Â And the Israeli operation is anything but a blitzkrieg.Â But, then again, Buchanan does have a problem with world history.

One of the scary things about the Fairness Doctrine is that Pat Buchanan could be brought in to espouse the “conservative” point-of-view. (Of course, that already happens with him, but at least it’s not because of government regulation.) Pat Buchanan might not be a liberal, but he certainly doesn’t speak for me as a conservative, and I mean that on a whole host of issues: Israel, national security, free trade, etc.

Ergo, if he calls Israelâ€™s operation a blitzkrieg, he thinks their operation is justified.

Sorry, that’s tortured. I read that Buchanan said that Israel was engaged in a “blitzkrieg” against their Palestinian “concentration camp”. That is not positive. It means that Buchanan was engaged in comparing the Israelis to the Nazis, an increasingly fashionable comparison among anti-Semites of the Left and of the Right.

Buchanan thinks the Nazis were justified in invading Poland with their â€œblitzkrieg.â€ That suggests he believes a blitzkrieg to be a good thing. Ergo, if he calls Israelâ€™s operation a blitzkrieg, he thinks their operation is justified.

This is a product of wishful thinking and laughably bad logic. This kind of reaction only serves Buchanan because it ignores motivation (the “suggestion” that blitzkrieg is a good thing, something Buchanan obviously isn’t doing). If you want to empower Buchanan, keep it up.

The central question is: Is disagreeing with Israeli policies anti-Semitic? The answer is an emphatic No. Peace between Israel and its neighbors is, if anything, pro-Israel and pro-Semitic and it is the means to this peace whereupon disagreement is entirely justified, where discussion should be honest and objective — particularly amongst those like myself who don’t hold Israel in higher regard than any other nation that receives my taxes and holds my nation’s attention to in my opinion an inordinate degree.

You have no disagreement from me re. Buchanan’s use of terms like concentration camp and blitzkrieg. It is a deliberate cheapening of what Nazi Germany did. Is he anti-Semitic? I consider anti-Semitism a serious offense and don’t throw the term around as loosely as Buchanan throws around his German. He may be, but let’s not confuse honest disagreement with various Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.

Many conservatives think the Bush was justified torturing people. That suggests many conservatives believe torture to be a good thing.

Torture of one terrorist operative is a better thing than thousands of people dying.

Furthermore, gillie, given how Democrats refused to do anything about Saddam Hussein torturing hundreds of thousands of people, and even went to Baghdad in support of Saddam’s regime, it can be definitively stated that Democrats fully support and endorse torture, and are hypocritical when they claim to oppose it.

Torture of one terrorist operative is a better thing than thousands of people dying.

That’s the kind of moral clarity your typical hash-brained leftist is incapable of. But I would take a further… if torturing one terrorist saves the life of even 1 innocent person or American soldier, it’s worth it.

And the really sick part about people like gillie is they think because they would rather let X number of innocent people die than subject a terrorist to even a moment’s discomfort, that makes them morally superior.

#14: V, people like gillie hold their opinion in the abstract. If their necks, or the necks of loved ones, were on the line (literally if you’re in the hands of Muslim terrorists), they’d sing a different tune.

gillie, you’re leaving out the part where McCain worked with Bush to define what is and isn’t torture. The bill, passed in either 2005 or 2006, retrospectively blessed the actions of the Bush administration. Try to be informed before you hold forth, OK? That way, your sick, twisted desire to slam America will be less obvious.

P.S. gillie, if you are REALLY concerned about torture and if you want to know what real torture looks like, click here. And read some of the comments.

In short, gillie, if you want to get all moral, it would behoove you to have some little bit of concern in your heart for real victims of real torture. Instead of, you know, making sh*t up about America.

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own,” the report states. “The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

“These policies are wrong and must never be repeated,” McCain said

Read the report (signed by 12 Republicans) and tell me how you can say we donâ€™t torture

If a relatively small number of “innocent” people suffer through the temporary discomfort liberals call “torture,” but that spares other innocent people death, disfigurement, or the loss of loved ones, I am all for it. Unlike liberals, I don’t hate the military, I don’t hate our soldiers, and I trust them to be careful and discerning about the use of “torture.” But even if mistakes are made, I still err on the side of protecting life. Whereas liberals err on the side of endangering it.

gillie, again, you’re the one glibly making stuff up about America. You clearly don’t care one whit about real victims of real torture. And, if you seriously believed your own insults towards us, you wouldn’t be here.

As for this:

tactics used in the concentration camps of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, Chinese POW camps, and Vietnamese POW camps are not â€œreal tortureâ€?

Newsflash: Not *everything* done in those camps were torture. gillie, did you know that the Nazis and Japs sometimes fed their prisoners? And they even gave them some water! And on occasion, yes, they questioned them using sleep deprivation techniques – rather than, say, inserting a rod of glass into the prisoner’s genitals and breaking it (an example of real torture, courtesy of the Japanese).

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a world where people used English words like “torture” in a meaningful fashion, and cared about its real victims? Instead of, you know, making sh*t up about the good guys.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin defines torture: “On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.”

I just saw a report on mass graves being uncovered in Iraq. Children, 5 and 7 years old, executed by Saddam’s guards. Hundreds of thousands of people tortured (really tortured, the brutal disfiguring kind, not the “the air conditioning is too cold” kind) and murdered.

Leftists say taking this guy out of power “wasn’t worth it.”

But then they pretend to be upset because some terrorist got water poured in his nose.

#35
That is not what happened. And to be honest, that only happens in your 24 induced fantasy world
We took people off the street who might have said once “I know Bin Ladin” and tortured them. We took farmers who were at the wrong place and the wrong time and tortured them.
MOST were innocent.
MOST were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As well as hating women who have been raped, qweers who have been bashed, racial minorities who have faced bigotry and foreigners, period. In other words, anyone who has ever had to experience something that you would rather deny. You are typical, heartless POS “conservative” who deserves to experience all those things that in your twisted mind are the result of “victim mentality”.

â€œIt is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,â€ the president-elect explained. â€œPart of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though itâ€™s true.

They were not innocents, they were caught on the field of battle, and the ones we non-torture “tortured” were people like Khaleid Sheihk Mohammad, whom we knew by nature of their position in the organization must know vital information.

The truth is we waterboarded and used other techniques that caused the poor aggrieved terrorists some discomfort, things like putting red marker ink on a woman’s fingers and telling the filth it was menstrual blood, or exposing them to, horror of horrors, the Israeli flag — you know the things hysterical immoral women like you and Andrew Sullivan refer to as “torture” — and got intelligence out of it that foiled actual plans to attack the United States.

And I hate to break the naive little bubble you live in, but it HAS been institutionalized by the United States Congress, despite all their political posturing.

And, we see gillie perfectly illustrating the faux-morality of the left. Setting the AC too low and creating the illusion of drowning are supposed to be completely equivalent to smashing someone’s fingers with a hammer.

Never mind that harsh interrogation is done to save lives, a far cry from the senseless brutality of real torture.

Saving innocent lives just isn’t worth it if it involves temporary discomfort to a terrorist. That’s leftist morality. Caring more about the comfort of terrorists than the preservation of innocent life.

if cutting off peoples’ fingers, which Saddam Hussein did on a mass scale, is not torture, as is claimed by gillie, Barack Obama, and the Democrat Party, why on earth would temporary induced hypothermia be?

That is, of course, if we were operating under the assumption that it was the action, and not the person doing it, that gillie cares about. Hence why he whines and screams about the US torturing people, but insists that John McCain was not tortured in Vietnam.

Gee, arenâ€™t you glad adDave doesnâ€™t stoop to name-calling and mass-generalizations of people like heâ€™s always accusing NDT of doing.

And what’s funny is that adDave, by his own definitions, is a bigot and a racist, since he’s complained here about an incompetent minority individual in his workplace and how that person isn’t fired because of their minority status.

(I acknowledge that arguing with a brainwashed obamamoonie like gillie is a waste of time, but the peeks into the leftist alternative reality are fascinating, in the same way a true-crime book about a serial killer is fascinating.)

Never mind that harsh interrogation is done to save lives, a far cry from the senseless brutality of real torture.

This touches on an important point: Context does matter. Or purpose, if you prefer. Show me a doctor who does emergency field work to save a person from gangrene or flesh-eating bacteria, and I’ll show you someone who inflicts massive pain and disfiguring injury, *sometimes even without the patient’s consent*. But it isn’t torture, because it’s for a good purpose. And we can know that it really is for a good purpose, if and because it is *no more than necessary*. Show me a doctor who inflicts more pain or injury than is necessary to protect life, and then I’ll show you a torturer.

Real torture should be defined as something roughly like: the intentional infliction of pain or injury that is *unnecessary* to achieving a moral aim.

In the case of terrorists, the moral aim is to save (say) 10,000 people’s lives, rather than (say) the patient’s own life. It’s still a moral aim. If you can show that the CIA did *more than was necessary* to get KSM to spill the beans about his many horrific plots, then and only then, they would be torturers.

As well as hating women who have been raped, qweers who have been bashed, racial minorities who have faced bigotry and foreigners, period.

It’s fun when ADD shows his true colors as a raving, senseless hater.

ADD, sorry to disappoint you, but you won’t find any of those things you wildly listed from me or anyone I associate with on this blog. (Unless, of course, you’re projecting again and had yourself in mind 😉 )

As for how techniques like keeping the AC too low, sleep deprivation, etc., square with my definition:

– They aren’t injuries.
– They are definitely uncomfortable, which is why they work. But discomfort is not pain (unless you’re a pampered Western leftist).
– They very definitely achieved a moral purpose – the saving of tens of thousands of lives – and, other than mistakes which were and are *against policy*, were apparently done carefully and with a strong consciousness of stopping as soon as the lives were duly saved.

As I’ve said before: I don’t deny that our CIA interrogators, military people, etc., make some mistakes. I deny that the mistakes are their/our policy. I deny, correctly, that torture is our policy. I acknowledge and affirm that America generally investigates and punishes the mistakes. Saddam didn’t. al Qaeda doesn’t. The Nazis and imperial Japanese didn’t. What the latter did, was/is real torture.

ROFL 🙂 Oh please, gillie, that is YOU. YOU are the one who uses the word “torture” to describe any treatment of terrorists you don’t like. You are the moral fraud here. You trivialize real victims of real torture. You don’t care one whit, gillie, about real victims of real torture.

Notice how leftist gillie refuses, flat-out REFUSES, to say that John McCain was tortured by the Viet Cong.

What that makes clear is that gillie has two separate sets of standards for what constitutes torture. Turning down the air conditioner is torture to the Democrat Party, but what was done to John McCain was not.

Again, it’s not actions that constitute torture to gillie; it’s who performs them. That’s why gillie and his Democrat Party endorse and support regimes like Saddam Hussein’s and the Viet Cong’s, but scream bloody murder about anything that the United States does.

That’s because you would then have to admit that the Democrat Party, such as John Kerry and Jane Fonda, supported and endorsed torture of American troops.

Just as you refuse to admit that Saddam Hussein tortured — mainly because you would then have to admit that the Democrat Party and “the world”, which opposed Saddam’s removal or punishment, has no problem whatsoever with torture.

One wonders if gillie thinks it was “torture” to the people who leaped to their death from the WTC, or were burned to death, or suffocated, or crushed by hundreds of thousands of tons of debris, or were stabbed/had their throats cut on the planes.

Too bad gillie is more interested in protecting the people whose stated goal it is to do that to more Americans than the American people themselves.

We took people off the street who might have said once â€œI know Bin Ladinâ€ and tortured them.

Like who?

We took farmers who were at the wrong place and the wrong time and tortured them.

Like who?

MOST were innocent.

As determined by who?

MOST were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Like who?

Also, can you explain why liberals in congress are backpedalling so fiercely on the “torture” issue?

So
Letâ€™s try and hold Rummy and Bush accountable.

Can we agree to that?

So let’s try and hold lord BJ, Janet Reno, Jimmuh etc. accountable.

Say, isn’t shooting up and burning down one’s church around them “torture”? Or is that just how liberals enforce the “separation of church and state”.

Please quit trying to insult us, gillie. The left has long standing love affairs with the world’s greatest torturers. Therefore, you’re full of shit and you can take your moral equivalency game and shove it sideways.

gillie, I’d prefer to hold you accountable for your various moral frauds. You know… like your making sh*t up. Or your not giving a flying crap about real victims of real torture, you America-hating phony.

Yes, Gillie, that’s what you call it when you cause no pain and no damage and it only lasts a short while. Its temporary, and its uncomfortable.

Thats called accuracy in labeling, unlike the Democrat party who calls taking away workers right to a secret ballot “the employee freedom of choice act” and calls regulations restricting the speech of only broadcasters that disagree with them the “fairness doctrine”.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You really are mentally retarded arent you. Oh! its got the word war in it! therefore it represents Republicans!

Republicans have NEVER said war is peace, idiot. We say war is war and its hell and its unfortunately sometimes necessary in an evil world. We do believe, as has been proven by history, that the way to keep ourselves at peace is by having the biggest, strongest military on the planet. But there is a huge difference between “war is peace” and “peace through strength” that is apparently too nuanced for a mental midget such as yourself to understand.

DEMOCRATS, on the other hand, are the ones who are CURRENTLY telling Americans that capitalism, the name given economic freedom by Karl Marx, doesn’t work, that they are slaves to corporations, that taking more power away from individuals and giving it to the government, aka slavery, is the only answer.

And it is LIBERALS who over and over and over again insist that enlightenment comes from prohibiting their ideas from being challenged. The fairness doctrine which targets only conservative radio, preventing any ideas that challenge global warming, Darwinism, laws against hate speech, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize challenges to global warming, etc, etc. And it is liberals who are constantly shouting down, throwing things at, boycotting, and otherwise trying to destroy speech and ideas they dont like. In other words, it is Liberals who advocate that ignorance is strength.

And while we’re on the topic of Orwell, what on Earth do you think “hate crimes” and “hate speech” ARE? They are thought crimes!

You are more of a blithering idiot than I thought if you think Orwell was warning against anybody but people like YOU who advocate giving the government more power over the individual.

And AE most of the people we tortured were just people in the wrong place in the wrong time.
Not terrorists. No ticking bomb.
Just torture.

I cant figure out if youre a liar or an idiot. Even your Messiah, Obama, disagrees with you as I showed above. But by all means, please document their names and locations and conditions of their false arrests. I can wait.

#76 “Republicans have NEVER said war is peace, idiot.”
You are right, republicans never said that. But please, let me explain to you what I was doing. I was using a few lines from a famous book to highlight how folks on the right use innocuous words to describe a horrible chapter in American History. They use those words like “discomfort” and such words in the hopes they can believe it and thus keep their conscience clear.

Sorry that went over your head, I didn’t mean for you to take it literally.

#76 “Republicans have NEVER said war is peace, idiot.”
You are right, republicans never said that. But please, let me explain to you what I was doing. I was using a few lines from a famous book to highlight how folks on the right use innocuous words to describe a horrible chapter in American History.

Sorry that went over your head, I didn’t mean for you to take it literally.

#77 unfortunately I have little time to do that. I apologize, I really do. If time permitted I would gladly help you in your search. But names, dates and other info are quite easy to find. Of course, I did you give three names of people, have you looked up them?

But please, let me explain to you what I was doing. I was using a few lines from a famous book to highlight how folks on the right use innocuous words to describe a horrible chapter in American History.

No need, If you could read, you’d see I not only “got” but already eviscerated your asinine non-point up above:

Yes, Gillie, thatâ€™s what you call it when you cause no pain and no damage and it only lasts a short while. Its temporary, and its uncomfortable.

Thats called accuracy in labeling, unlike the Democrat party who calls taking away workers right to a secret ballot â€œthe employee freedom of choice actâ€ and calls regulations restricting the speech of only broadcasters that disagree with them the â€œfairness doctrineâ€.

You see, its not Orwellian to call something what it is, Gillie. Its Orwellian to insist things are what they are not. Like pretending red marker ink is torture.

Of course, I did you give three names of people, have you looked up them?

Yes, a whopping THREE people, the only evidence of any unpleasant treatment let alone harsh interrogation or torture is …. their testimony! No witnesses, no evidence. In fact the only evidence in existence that even pertains to the case is the al Qaeda training manual which instructs them all to make false claims of torture!

But of your three examples, one was detained by Canada, which you apparently don’t know is not part of the United States, one’s status was reviewed several times and classified as an enemy combatant each time, and only one was improperly detained by the US and the only evidence of any mistreatment is his say so.

El-Masri alleges that they beat him, stripped him naked, drugged him, and gave him an enema.

Funny, isnt that exactly what Andrew Sullivan was advertising for on bareback.com?

I think you could have a more intelligent conversation with that bear hugger in that Discovery Chanel documentary a few years back. I think that clown fed himself and his “girlfriend” to the bears and it wouldn’t surprise me if gillie did something similar.

No, he doesn’t support it–I think you know, but it didn’t sound much like sarcasm–he’s just like Ahmadinajsdldssdfoosdlksdlnsdsdncsoopsdpospewew in that he doesn’t hold up his own standards when it comes to genocide. Or like the Democrats when it comes to race.

Before that, though, I’m sure the liberal left will repudiate murderous bastards like “Uncle Joe” Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Guevara, Castro, Chavez etc. right? No doubt you will castigate the liberal left for allowing the deaths of thousands in SE Asia just so they could advance their power grab?

Not to mention stripping Gen. Ashley Wilkes of his star he earned playing pocket pool while Rwandans died.

When you’re ready to do all that, get back to us. Otherwise, you just look like a bleeding gash.